Li v. Zhao (L.A.S.C. case number: KC056624) (Court of Appeal case number: B230620)
Jul 23, 2014OUTCOME: Win
Plaintiff (represented by this office) filed a lawsuit in court seeking the return of all properties purchased in contemplation of marriage from defendant who countered that all such properties bought ... were gifts during a relationship. Our client bought a home, improved on the subject residence and furnished the house with furniture and articles specially purchased from China, all in anticipation of a matrimony. Defendant denied any arrangement or agreement to be married. Plaintiff stated that defendant refused to consummate the marriage ceremony because plaintiff did not produce the 5-caret ring and the $300,000 cash payment as demanded prior to the actual wedding. Prior to and on the date of the trial, plaintiff moved to continue the trial on the grounds that plaintiff and a major witness would be unavailable. However, the court denied the requests made. Plaintiff was absent from the trial because of various reasons, including health problems. Plaintiff’s counsel, facing an order of dismissal by the trial court, proceeded with the trial without the participation of the plaintiff himself and of the essential witness. A court judgment was rendered against our client. After the judgment, plaintiff and this office learned and believed that the defense counsel perpetrated fraud by posing as an agent for an Italian company, wanting to buy the goods sold by our client’s company in China. This agent insisted that our client remain in China to meet the actual buyer. Plaintiff was deceived into believing that a prospective customer was interested in purchasing the material from our client’s company. The trial court reached a decision on the ground that there was no express agreement between the parties to be married. Post-trial motions were pursued but to no avail. Appeal thus ensued, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for new trial stating that there was error committed by the trial court in the interpretation of a statute. The reasoning was that an agreement to marry could be implied by the conduct of the parties. Note: The defense trial counsel for the underlying lawsuit withdrew shortly after the defendant acquired the favorable judgment (that was subsequently reversed). A different counsel for the defendant handled the appeal. A new trial before the jury took place, and this office was able to successfully brought the case to a jury verdict in favor of our client for a judgment in the sum of $263,417.65, with pre-judgment interest at 10% ($131,708.85) and costs ($7,822.71), totaling $402,949.21.
